Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:38:06 -0500

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt

For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Proposed Standard
but I have a few comments.

Major
=====

Section 5: Impact on scalability

* This document states that

"Use of Traffic Engineering Attribute does not increase the number of
routes"

but I am not sure if this is true.

Say I have a route 200.0.2.0/24 with a TE attribute field X and a route 
200.0.3.0/24 with TE attribute field Y. Without the TE attribute these 
could have been aggregated to a 200.0.2.0/23, but with the attribute, 
they cannot be. Am I reading this wrong?

Minor
=====

Section 3

* This document does not define whether Switching Capability-specific 
information is included when the switching cap field is set to Fiber 
Switch Capable (FSC)

Cheers
Suresh

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: "Hamid Ould-Brahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:35:47 -0500

Hi Suresh,

See inline under <<<[Hamid]...>>> 

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 12:38 PM
To: General Area Review Team;
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-bgp-te-attribute-03.txt

Major
=====

<<<[Hamid] Actually this was discussed before. The draft recommends that
when
the routes carry different TE information (even if they share all other
attributes and
next hop then these routes will be advertised in 
different BGP update messages.  
So in this specific case BGP will have to send
two different BGP update messages. When looking at a single BGP update
message with TE information, the statement above is correct.

Minor
=====

Section 3

<<<[Hamid] Yes. In fact here we are not doing anything different than
what is being done
in RFC4203 (OSPF-TE).

   Thanks for the input.

Hamid.>>>

Cheers
Suresh